Reasons Why I Hate Us 3

Sorry to "hate us" so often (c'mon, that's a funny post title), but sometimes we demand it.

I received an email from my local association today saying that there are some scholarships available from the North American Mission Board (NAMB) for the Origins Conference in Pasadena, CA. Sounds like a lovely opportunity so I inquire, not knowing whether or not I could go in May. Hopeful.

Well now I know I CAN'T go. My schedule is wide open, partial scholarships are still available, but the Donger is disqualified. Wanna know why? Huh? KPOW! Here's part of the scholarship form...

This is almost laughable. Asking about private prayer languages and alcohol on scholarship forms for conferences? SBC'rs you better wake up. If we don't start putting the Bible before our rules we are in deep weeds.

By the way, Joe Thorn will be posting in the next day or two on the NAMB policy for church planters. This will be important to discuss.

Comments

[Joe Thorn]

What? Are you fasting and cannot attend that lunch? ;)

[iMonk]

Is this from Larknews? Seriously. Seriously. C'mon.

[Paul]

Maybe they should just have one question: "Do you sin?" and then disqualify all those who answer "yes."

[Joe Thorn]

That's the problem right there Paul. Drinking is not a sin. They might as well ask if I eat, laugh, and have sex with my hot wife. Such are good things God wants me to do in faith, for my enjoyment and his glory.

[Paul]

Actually, I'm Lutheran, so I know drinking isn't a sin. I'm just amazed that many elements of the Baptist side of Christianity hammer alcohol as what seems to be the end-all-be-all of problems. I've known total abstainers to be chimney-esque smokers and I just don't get it.

[Chris Walls]

Where are the questions, "Have you over eaten in the past twelve months?" "Have you looked at a woman lustfully, other than your wife, in the past twelve months?" "Have you thought about hitting one of your deacons in the past twelve months?" or "Have you not tithed in the past twelve months?"

UGH!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[the other Paul]

I'm thinking about giving some partial scholarships to this event as well, but I need to ask a few questions first:

1) Have you read Baptist Press within the last 12 months?

2) If Everyone Can, are you it?

3) Do you speak with a Yankee accent or an accent from the upper Midwest, or a private Bostonian accent (i.e. Do you sound like Ted Kennedy when you're alone)?

4) Do you publicly disavow any association/affiliation/admiration for Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer, Darrin Patrick, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Spencer Burke, Andrew Jones, Scot McKnight, Erwin McManus, Ed Young Jr., Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Bill Hybles, Leonard Sweet, Ryan Bolger, Eddie Gibbs, Robert Webber, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Rob Bell, Chris Seay, Tim Keel and John Eldredge?

[James Gordon]

Steve,
First off I want to say that I appreciate your blog. It has encouraged me quite a bit in the last few months. I am enjoying your "Why I Hate Us Series," but it has led me to wonder why you are still in the SBC. What is so good about it that is causing you to stay? I am just curious since I am not incredibly familiar with the SBC other than its anti-alcohol position and previous dabbling in liberalism. I long to see the SBC agree with the sufficiency of Scripture and cast out any extra-Biblical standards leading to an artificial righteousness. As a 20 year old male following the law and abstaining from alcohol for the time being, I can see the ridiculousness of these standards. Any information would be appreciated. Thanks!

James

[Jeremy]

I agree with James. As an outsider looking in I can't see the point in staying.

I think an explanation is in order...

Jeremy

[Dan Barnett]

I'm not sure that an explanation is needed. I can understand your concern on why some stay in if it's so bad. But, sometimes, the best way to save or change something is from within. I know, more locally, men like Steve are making great strides with those they associate with. I'm not speaking for Steve, just adding my take.

[Timmy Brister]

James and Jeremy,

I certainly cannot speak for Steve, but I do share his sentiments (the things I hate) about us. It goes without saying, however, that there are things we I think we would all say that we love about us as well.

Fortunately, as some of us have seen, there are some Southern Baptist leaders and influencers who are wanting to carry the conversation around things that actually matter in SBC life, such as church planting, gospel proclamation, church reform, etc. I think of men like David Dockery, Bill Curtis, Ed Stetzer, and Tom Ascol just to name a few.

Unfortunately, Baptist Press does seem interested in carrying news that is propagandist-free focused on our true identity as Southern Baptists and commitment to reaching our world with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ergo, other outlets such as Steve's blog and others have facilitated the discussion and have provided information Southern Baptist are looking for and are not finding in the convention sponsored press.

Southern Baptists have a rich history of missions and church planting. However, we also have a long-standing history of controversy as well. I think it is our goal that the former and not the latter will win the day. At least that's why I am in it.

[Jeremy]

I probably should have added a ";-)" to my post. Obviously Dan's comment is important. Yet, even Spurgeon left the Baptist Union when the it was clear the fight was in vain. He, no doubt, believed leaving would communicate more than staying.

Of course, I'm not advocating that. I don't know enough about the SBC to give that type of counsel. However, I will say I have no intention of becoming involved in the SBC in light of these things.

[Steve McCoy]

Good questions and responses.

1. I echo Timmy's explanation of what's good about the SBC. There are still some great things about who we are, I just think they are becoming increasingly overshadowed by our faults/sins.

2. The church I pastor is connected to the SBC. Leaving the SBC is not wise at this point in our church's life. I think being in the SBC is still okay for us. But JUST okay.

3. Impacting from the outside is difficult, near impossible. Impacting from the inside is easier, more strategic. I've chosen to try to impact from the inside as long as God keeps me here.

That's a start.

[James Gordon]

Dan, Timmy, and Steve,
Thanks for the responses. I appreciate the honesty, and I can also appreciate wanting to cause change from within. I attend a church that is coming out of the plague of fundamentalism that has dominated many, and I can attest to desiring change over simply giving up. I just had not heard anything good about the SBC, and I was curious what the deal was. Thanks for the explanation. Keep up the good work!

James

[Timmy Brister]

James,

Steve, Joe, myself and many others recently attended a conference called the "Baptist Identity Conference" held at Union University. I encourage you to check out some of the MP3s, especially Mike Day, Greg Thornbury, and David Dockery. That conference was definitely an oasis for many of us.

My situation is a little different than most since I am in a seminary context where the convictions and passions I have are shared by many people. Before seminary, I served on staff at a church where it was easy for me to have an Elijah complex, thinking I was the only one who cared about God, missions, etc. If my fellow seminarians are any indication about the future of the SBC, I have all the more reason to be hopeful. In this "reformed hotbed" of SBTS, there are many who have a single-minded passion for the glory of God and the building of His Church.

The last thing I would add to this is that leaving the SBC may very well be the thing God could be calling us to do. I think Joe mentioned this as one wise well-respected Southern Baptist advised him on that. The thing, however, about our churches is that we are autonomous, and whatever is piped down from X-Comm or any other entity in the SBC is not binding on the church. The Convention seeks to serve the churches, not the churches for the Convention. These "denominational servants" (which is a term highly in suspect) though often are guilty of politicizing the SBC have been voted or appointed for the purpose of bulding healthy churches and promoting cooperation around the Great Commission. The SBC was started for that purpose, and if church planting and mission work could no longer be accomplished (as the stated purpose for our origination) due to such whacked out policies as the alcohol debauckle, then an exit strategy certainly is in order.

[James Gordon]

Timmy,
Thanks for the direction to the mp3s. I'll take a look. I hope Steve doesn't mind me going a little off subject here, but I am wondering what you (and anyone else) think of SBTS. I am considering TEDS, TBI (The Bethlehem Institute), Wheaton, and SBTS. Any thoughts.

James

[Micah]

Just to toss the topic to something that was said a few weeks ago here. Today I heard of another church planter in Louisiana that might lose his SBC funding because of a connection with alcohol.

I don't know about you guys but if I was trying to plant a church in the South I would be drinking too.

Micah

[Benji Ramsaur]

Before I post a few thoughts, let me say that I don't drink any alcohol. I tried to get into the habit of drinking red wine years ago for the health benefits, but did not like the taste.

Anyway, a few thoughts:

And elderly Southern Baptist pastor told me a story that I think sums up the foundational problem with the abstinence position.

He told the story of a father who drank socially and knew how much he could drink without getting drunk. There was no problem with drinking for the father. However, this pastor said that the father had young boys and that he was putting those boys at risk because in watching his Daddy drink they might start drinking as well and they might be biologically predisposed to being an alcoholic even though his father was not.

This pastor said this biological predisposition idea was a "scientific fact"

Well, if you believe this, then I could see why you would hold to the abstinence position. And I could see why you have such "rage" toward alcohol and the alcoholic industry. And I could see why you think anybody who starts drinking alcohol is nuts to do so.

The problem with this is that I believe the clear biblical teaching is that anyone who abuses alcohol does so PRIMARILY because of sin. However, the "biologically predisposed to being an alcoholic" seems to communicate that the main reason why somebody does this is PRIMARILY because of their biological make-up.

I hope you are getting the picture.

Whatever particular statement God makes you can bank on because there is no future discovery that would contradict what He says because He knows all. And in this case, there are no "genes" out there that He does not already know about.

Therefore, I actually view the biological predisposition argument (which seems to under gird the abstinence position) to be a liberal belief that many fine, godly, "conservative" men have bought into.

And I think that if they never believe that this idea is liberal and naturalistic (as I think it is), then I think they will continue to hold onto their position.

I think I would to, if I believed it.

But I don't, so I don't believe in the abstinence position.

[michael mcminn]

james gordon said:
"I just had not heard anything good about the SBC, and I was curious what the deal was."

Wow. Third reason in the post and James gives a fourth. This is what plagues the SBC. Many who argue for total abstinence for alcohol use the 'above reproach' argument. It rests squarely upon our leaders that these types of side issues and EXTRA-biblical standards can (not saying they always do) but at least have the potential too, hurt local churches.

We as Southern Baptists have great opportunity to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth, to every tribe and tongue. Many, if not most our churches do that, with varying degrees of success. But as a 'convention' we generate for ourselves bad press when our leaders begin forcing 'opinions' upon the larger body. Yes the local church is autonomous but we are not so insulated that 'convention' decisions and press coverage does not affect our perception in our own communities.

It is a sad commentary when James says he does not know anything good about the SBC. Because there is so much more good than bad, more positive than negative, but my belief in that is wavering. In 20 years of SBC life and 14 years of ministry in SBC churches I never thought about looking outside of SBC churches for ministry opportunities. (not because of a 'we are the only ones who have it right mentality either.) I never thought about going outside the SBC because there was no need to, no desire to. I did not create this frustration and desire within myself. It comes from our conventions leadership moving towards these ridiculous extra-biblical uncharitable stances on issues of conscience and liberty. How can the same people that championed inerrancy have such a low view of the sufficiency of scripture.

It boggles my mind. Why can they not understand that moderation is the biblical position when it comes to alcohol?

Thanks Steve, Joe and Timmy for being guys who love the convention and hate the convention.

Michael

[Timmy Brister]

James,

For the sake of brevity, I will give three reasons why SBTS *might* be the place for you.

1. Faculty - all around the best in the world
2. Cost - most affordable (that is, if you are Southern Baptist)
3. Reformed - Historic Southern Baptist theology

Of course, there is much more, but that's for starters. TEDS, TBI, and Wheaton are great alternatives, however. If you plan on visiting, feel free to email me and let me know. I regularly meet with prospective students and even host their visit should there be a need.

[Stephen Newell]

James, Timmy has it nailed with all three points.

We have a faculty at the very least comparable in wisdom and knowledge with pretty much anyone you compare them with. They are some of the most Godly and passionate people I have ever known.

The cost of attending Southern made it possible for me to be the first person in my family to get a Master's degree. Otherwise I'd have stayed home and paid off my student loans from undergrad by now.

While SBTS is confessionally about as Reformed as Baptists can get without being explicitly so (Dr. Chad Brand says 3 out of 5 TULIP points-T, U, and P-are required to teach there, though you could include L and I depending on how you read the Abstract of Principles), there are those profs who hold to a variety of stances that aren't necessarily "full" Reformed. Bruce Ware springs to mind as an example; he would be Reformed if he held to a "full" view of the L. And I don't think I've ever met any prof who held less than those 3, most have been at least 4. And even better, they are supportive of rather than combative about those who are "full."

If you decide to take a look at Southern, you can't go wrong. Of course, you can't really go wrong with your other choices as well, IMO. Adding Southern to your list would be a great thing to do when casting out your "fleece" to the Lord.

[James Gordon]

To All,
Thanks for the help and comments!

[brad brisco]

Steve

I couldn't believe when I saw the picture on your blog, I had just filled out the form and am planning on going to Origins. As a denominational worker, in the area of church planting for the past 6 years, I have played by the rules because I knew what the rules were for NAMB. (Which I think are competely crazy, but they are the "rules" for me just like any employer has rules.) But for them to ask of those who are not "employees" is totally crazy.

[johnMark]

How long before there is a question about blogging? :)

Mark

[Frank Turk (centuri0n)]

Hey Steve:

At least they didn't demand that you drink the kool-aid at the lunch.

Well, at least on the questionaire. Who knows what'll happen once they close the doors...

[Frank Turk (centuri0n)]

jM:

That was my other comment. I'm glad I wasn;t the only one who thought that.

[Frank Turk (centuri0n)]

Hey Joe --

The thing about what you're doing with your wife -- they didn't ask if you tithe or not. That's something you do with your wife, too. Are you spending your money in a Godly way, or do we have to open your checkbook, dude, to find out if you're really serious about missions?

Then there's the problem that you associate with money at all, brother. You can't serve two masters. Either you love one and hate the other -- you cannot serve God and filthy mammon.

[Frank Turk (centuri0n)]

And by the way, you can now wear your convictions about the SBC on your, um, sleeve.

Not to be crass or anything. :-)

[donnie]

It looks like they change the MSC qualifications too...

[Steve McCoy]

johnmark and Frank, I haven't thought about the blog route. I can actually see where they might ask you to put your blog address on the form so they can see what you say about the SBC. Yikes.

Donnie, here are some of the MSC qualifications for all to see. For those who don't know, being a NAMB MSC (Mission Service Corps) missionary means you become an official unpaid volunteer missionary.

1. Alcohol and Substance Abuse

MSC Missionaries are expected to abstain from the use of alcohol and illegal drugs. They will neither advocate nor condone the use of alcohol as a beverage or the illegal use of drugs, marijuana or the misuse of other controlled substances. At least 12 months abstinence is required for candidates. When prior history of use exists, MSC applicants may be asked to sign the following covenant:

"I am under the conviction that the consumption of alcohol as a beverage is a detriment to my Christian life and witness. Furthermore, I am resolved that as a part of my Christian walk, I will not participate in the teaching, promotion, sale distribution, or use of any alcohol as a beverage. Furthermore, I understand that, in addition to Holy Scripture, I will be under the authority, policies, and guidelines of the North American Mission Board, the state/Canadian convention to which I am assigned, and to my local supervisor. I agree to abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, and any other behavior that would hinder my ministry during my term of service. I understand that the use of these substances, or involvement in questionable conduct, will be cause for dismissal as a MSC missionary."

[Benji Ramsaur]

"They will neither advocate nor CONDONE the use of alcohol as a beverage..." (emphasis mine)

So let me get this straight.

Does this mean that if a Southern Baptist meets with an unbeliever at Applebees for lunch [in order to get to know and speak the gospel to him] and the SB orders sweet tea and the unbeliever orders beer, then the SB is expected to point out to the unbeliever that his drinking of that alcoholic beverage is a sin?

[Benji Ramsaur]

You want to know what I really think is going on when people use the "emotive" argument against alcohol, the one where they talk about their "alcoholic" father or brother or mother?

Well, they have obviously been through a painful experience. And someone or something has to take the blame.

Now, if a boy has grown up with a father who beat him when his father got drunk, then I think the "biological" argument can be very attractive to him.

Why?

Because it is too painful to face the idea that his father's "morality" was such that HIS FATHER LOVED THAT BOTTLE MORE THAN HE DID THE GOOD OF HIS OWN SON.

So, instead of blaming the sin in his father's heart (because of the pain that would bring), he blames the alcohol and the alcoholic industry.

Behold, how the U G L I N E S S of sin is kept hidden.

[jessi]

Don't feel bad, I guess the apostle Paul wouldn't qualify for a scholarship either.

I lot of the discussion here has focused on the alcohol, which I understand...and I'm totally new to this blog (got here via linkage), but am I the only one who found the whole speaking in tongues a disqualifier highly strange? What exactly does that signify to a SBCer (cuz I'm not overly familiar with SBC stances)? That's the true determiner of a heretic?

[Timmy Brister]

My guess is that such questions are to preclude those who would not tow the party line in the SBC. Alcohol, private prayer languages (PPL), and Calvinism have become the leading issues of controversy, and they want to know what side we are on.

The problem comes when the party lines ceases to be biblical. So you have to choose whether you will be faithful to Scripture or loyal to the SBC. This reality is a dreadful one, but a real one nonetheless. The younger generation who have been raised with a high view of Scripture (sola scriptura) will go with God's Word over denominational loyalty.

This begs the question, however, about the future of the SBC altogether. If those pushing party line continue to make policies and standards beyond Scripture and the Baptist Faith & Message, there is no reason to think that they will marginalize or not lose those who have their consciences held captive to the Word of God. I wonder, then, what would the SBC be left with?

[Greg Alford]

So those who observe the Lords Supper with the Biblically “CORRECT ELEMENTS” of wine and unleavened bread, as did Jesus and all the Apostles, cannot serve with NAMB or receive any support from NAMB? And we think God is going to bless this kind of arrogance?

Timmy B.,
Excellent comments throughout!

Grace to all,
Greg

[Timmy Brister]

James,

What Greg said reminded me of one more reason you might consider SBTS. It comes from our confessional document called the "Abstract of Principles," and I am quoting from Article XVI:

"The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the end of the world. It is in no sense a sacrifice, but is designed to commemorate His death, to confirm the faith and other graces of Christians, and to be a bond, pledge and renewal of their communion with Him, and of their church fellowship."

Before you get too encouraged, let me put the caveat that our school covenant (which every student must adhere to) says that you must be an abstentionist while at SBTS. I wonder what kind of wine ole Boyce and the Founders were talking about here.

[Stephen Newell]

I'm still wondering about the mythical "Founders' wine cellar" that is supposedly hidden somewhere on campus. IF there is such a wine cellar, and IF it is ever found, I would be willing to lay down money (if I were a gambling man) that it would get treated like the "Lost Tomb of Jesus." ;-)

[Joe]

I think it's funny sounding

"Have you had alcohol as a beverage?"

Someone could say "I had alcohol, but not as a bverage?". Isn't that the point?

-Obama

[Dylan]

I can laugh at all this now, but in May, 06 we lost all of our NAMB funding for our church plant in Metro NYC. We were part of the New Hope New York project. What a mess! Imagine moving to a city where the rent is 3-4 k a month and then being dumped by your supporting denom. The sick part is we were striaght forward and upfront during our assesment and told that the whole alcohol issue would a non-issue in our area. Guess not! Remember this all took place a month before the famous resolution.

In a month we are moving to two services in a new location- Yes a bar.

[Justin Robinson]

I think that many of us (as in SBC conference members) should have seen the drinking and "prayer language" issues awaiting behind other issues and mindsets that are ingrained into the conference. For example I am currently an itinerant pastor simply because no church in my area will even consider an applicant for a bi-vocational or vocational pastoral position that has not had at least a formal education of a Bachelor's degree. The search committees cast aside all they come to love in an itinerant and interim pastor (faithfulness in preaching, a personal call, knowledge of Biblical languages, pastoral care, etc.) simply because one's serious education is a continuous and informal one. That is just as appalling, if not greater, than the issue of an occasional alcoholic beverage unto the glory of God (which for the curious I choose to abstain from). Simply stated, we should have seen it coming all along.

[Sam Hughey]

Perhaps we've forgotten how to tell the difference between 'weeds' and 'tares' and have satisfied our complaints using various Blogs as an outlet rather than taking personal action against what is considered false teaching (error in judgment for those who want to be politically correct) from those who make the rules, to which we have obviously submitted ourselves, seeing we continually give our support to the NAMB. If not, then what's the problem? After all, if we complain about the SBC being an unregenerate denomination, why do we exclude those in SBC leadership positions from being unregenerate. Why is it always 'someone else' in the congregation who is unregenerate? Has anyone here taken their disagreement to the source of the problem or considered not being a part of the problem any longer?

I realize this seems a bit harsh and it is not my intention to be disrespectful to anyone but perhaps it is time we stop complaining and start taking action even if it means distrubing our own comfort zones.

[Dan Barnett]

Sam, as far as I know there are many,including guys who have commented on this post who are taking action. I think it also goes a long way for guys like Steve, Timmy and Joe to, although they have issues and complaints, stick up for the SBC. I think that speaks volumes. I know of a lot of progress that's being made in our local association, largely due to men not being silent about things. I don't think Steve's intention in this "WhY I Hate Us" series is to just whine about the SBC. I think, though I can't speak for him, part of his intention is to raise awareness and encourage others not to be silent.

[Sam Hughey]

Dan,

Please don't misunderstand my statements even though they seem a bit harsh. I'm not implying nobody is actively doing anything because I know many are and so far as desiring to raise awareness, I'm all for it and am doing the same. What I find difficult to understand though, is in spite of all the resistance we have toward what the SBC/NAMB is doing, why are they successful at what they are doing? Are we of no concern to them? Do they view the resistance as meaningless? Is this what Spiritual leadership is in the SBC?

[Alan Cross]

Ugh. This is getting really sad.